I’m getting a lot of ‘but my car is more convenient’ arguments lately, and I’m struggling to convey why that doesn’t make sense.

Specifically how to explain to people that: Sure, if you are able to drive, and can afford it, and your city is designed to, and subsidizes making it easy to drive and park, then it’s convenient. But if everyone does it then it quickly becomes a tragedy of the commons situation.

I thought of one analogy that is: It would be ‘more convenient’ if I just threw my trash out the window, but if we all started doing that then we’d quickly end up in a mess.

But I feel like that doesn’t quite get at the essence of it. Any other ideas?

  • @Gradually_Adjusting
    link
    English
    119 months ago

    It is political at heart. You just can’t pit the “power of the consumer” against industry interests and expect an ideal outcome. The Not Just Bikes guy, from what I hear, has given up hope for America at this point. Whatever happens, I hope other nations can learn from our example: Cave to auto and oil interests at your own peril.

    • @IsThisAnAI
      link
      English
      -229 months ago

      🙄 people just like their cars, it’s not some evil plot. Evening is big oils fault, never people meeting choices.

      • Thinker
        link
        English
        169 months ago

        The major car manufacturers have literally been collaborating for the better part of a century, along with oil companies, to keep Americans dependent on cars. It’s a well-documented fact. Even long before Citizebs United made corporate bribery legal, they’ve been using the state’s power to quell protests, destroy non-car infrastructure, and outlaw use of our streets for anything except cars.

      • @magiccupcake
        link
        English
        69 months ago

        Many cities had their convenient bus and tram line bought and dismantled by auto companies. All while under huge protest of residents too.

        It was not a natural evolution that got us here.